(Video) This will -or, at least, should- worry the White House

July 26, 2012

You may recall that, a couple of weeks ago, Mitt Romney spoke before the NAACP at their annual convention. The reception he received was mixed: some standing ovations mixed with jeers at his promise to repeal ObamaCare.

Still, he apparently made some converts who were willing to go on the record:

(via The Jawa Report)

That’s gotta hurt.

Then there’s this item from Breitbart — CBS News: Blacks Unsatisfied With Obama

CBS does a pretty good job giving a myriad of examples of that dissatisfaction, even while in nearly every other paragraph, CBS reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell mentions how, dissatisfied or not, they are all still voting for Obama.

But that constant reassurance aside, the piece is filled with example after example of the grumbling from black community leaders and politicians all essentially saying how disappointed they are that Obama has done so little for them.

The piece leads with complaining from Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), both of whom are annoyed that black unemployment is so much higher than that of other communities.

Obama is also criticized for not showing much leadership on other issues that affect the black community. The piece notes, for instance, that Obama has done little on the violent crime that plagues big city black communities, and he’s also criticized for not speaking before any of the nation’s African American organizations like the NAACP or the National Urban League.

All in all, it seems that many in the African American community feel that Obama has failed to live up to his “unique role in history” and that he’s allowing “political expediency” to rule the day.

It’s been noted many times that the Democratic Party relies on near-total bloc voting by African Americans to win elections; they regularly garner above 90%. Even losing just a few percentage points from that bloc could cost them elections at the national and state levels.  Combine the Black vote being depressed because of dissatisfaction with Obama with the sight of NAACP leaders saying it’s okay to vote for Romney, and…

Well, let’s just say David Axelrod probably isn’t sleeping well at night.

Darn.

PS: Romney 2012, because I want a president who cares about Americans, but doesn’t care about their skin color.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Democrats who demand Romney release his tax returns, but refuse to release their own

July 22, 2012

In other words, typical election year hypocrisy by truly desperate hack pols:

In stunning examples of hypocrisy, though, Pelosi, Reid, and Wasserman-Schultz all refused to release their tax returns when asked by McClatchy Newspapers

“The leader has filed a complete financial disclosure report as required by law that includes financial holdings, transactions and other personal information,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told McClatchy. 

At a news conference, Wasserman Shultz said, “I file full financial disclosure required under the law” and refused to release her tax returns.

Reid also would not let McClatchy look at his tax returns.

In recent weeks, Pelosi has said Romney’s failure to release his tax returns makes him unfit to even be a Cabinet member while Reid said it made Romney unfit to be even a dogcatcher. 

Wasserman Schultz said Romney’s refusal to release his returns was an example of Romney’s “penchant for secrecy.” 

“Required under the law.” Funny, that’s the same reason Romney gives for refusing to release more of his returns. But then, that’s different; there’s an “R” after his name, and the Democrats have nothing else to run on, so they have to create distractions, plant doubt and suspicion, try to divide people on class and ethnic lines.

Thus we get Romney’s dog, Ann Romney’s horse, the fake “war on women,” voter ID equaling a return to Jim Crow, outsourcing, and so many other “Look, it’s Elvis!” moments.

Because the facts of their collective record of abysmal failure are all against them.

PS: Mitt Romney 2012, because I don’t care what he does with his own money. I care what’s done with our money.

via Tai Chi Policy and Vermontaigne

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Plucking the low-hanging fruit

July 19, 2012

Hey, if Obama is going to do something so stupid as to tell small business owners they didn’t build their businesses, don’t blame Romney for taking advantage of it again and again, all the way through November.

The latest:

And I’m willing to bet there are plenty more incensed small business owners waiting in the wings, ready to tell President “Too Busy to Meet With My Jobs Council” where he can shove his opinions.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


No more “Mr. Nice Mitt”

July 18, 2012

And it’s about time:

Standing before hundreds of roaring partisans in this sweltering Pittsburgh suburb Tuesday, Mitt Romney delivered a 30-minute speech that sounded, at times, like a greatest hits compilation of his favorite Obama-knocking stump speech lines. The president was, Romney said, “out of ideas,” and “looking for someone to blame,” and a “crony capitalist.”

One thing he was not: “A nice guy.”

In speeches from Des Moines to Dallas, Romney has always been careful to hedge his tough digs at Obama with a civil nod toward the president’s moral character: “He’s a nice guy,” the Republican has often said. “He just has no idea how the private economy works.” But Tuesday’s speech included no such hedge — and one campaign adviser said there’s a reason for that.

“[Romney] has said Obama’s a nice fellow, he’s just in over his head,” the adviser said. “But I think the governor himself believes this latest round of attacks that have impugned his integrity and accused him of being a felon go so far beyond that pale that he’s really disappointed. He believes it’s time to vet the president. He really hasn’t been vetted; McCain didn’t do it.”

Indeed, facing what the candidate and his aides believe to be a series of surprisingly ruthless, unfounded, and unfair attacks from the Obama campaign on Romney’s finances and business record, the Republican’s campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston’s pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a “liar” — very little will be off-limits, from the president’s youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

“I mean, this is a guy who admitted to cocaine use, had a sweetheart deal with his house in Chicago, and was associated and worked with Rod Blagojevich to get Valerie Jarrett appointed to the Senate,” the adviser said. “The bottom line is there’ll be counterattacks.”

The Obama campaign thugocracy has been trying to make hay with scurrilous class-warfare attacks on Romney’s record at Bain, his wealth, and even his integrity, flat-out saying he’s either a liar or a felon. They’ve desperately released another squirrel to distract people with by calling for Romney to release far more of his tax returns than required by law, implying there must be something shady in them, otherwise, why would Romney be so “secretive?” (Sadly, some conservatives are helping. (1)) Playing nice and trying to be a gentleman in response just won’t work. (See: McCain campaign, 2008)

The proper reply is to strike back, not with whiny anger, but to forcefully speak the truth about not only your own record, not only the other guy’s record, but the truth about his beliefs and character — why that makes him unfit and you fit for high office. Romney’s surrogates started this a bit on Sunday and Monday, but, yesterday, the candidate himself laid into Obama in a speech (no teleprompter) that had conservatives cheering as he attacked Obama for saying about successful business owners “you didn’t build that:

The idea to say that Steve Jobs didn’t build Apple, that Henry Ford didn’t build Ford Motor, that Papa John didn’t build Papa John Pizza, that Ray Kroc didn’t build McDonald’s, that Bill Gates didn’t build Microsoft, you go on the list, that Joe and his colleagues didn’t build this enterprise, to say something like that is not just foolishness, it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America and it’s wrong. [Applause]

And by the way, the President’s logic doesn’t just extend to the entrepreneurs that start a barber shop or a taxi operation or an oil field service business like this and a gas service business like this, it also extends to everybody in America that wants to lift themself up a little further, that goes back to school to get a degree and see if they can get a little better job, to somebody who wants to get some new skills and get a little higher income, to somebody who have, may have dropped out that decides to get back in school and go for it. People who reach to try and lift themself up. The President would say, well you didn’t do that. You couldn’t have gotten to school without the roads that government built for you. You couldn’t have gone to school without teachers. So you didn’t, you are not responsible for that success. President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that. [Applause]

I’ve got to be honest, I don’t think anyone could have said what he said who had actually started a business or been in a business. And my own view is that what the President said was both startling and revealing. I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a President of the United States.  It goes to something that I have spoken about from the beginning of the campaign.  That this election is, to a great degree, about the soul of America. Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build our future?

(Transcript courtesy of Ed Morrissey)

Emphasis added. That is the necessary ingredient when fighting back against Chicago-style gutter politics. The whole speech is at The Right Scoop. It’s well-worth the 30 minutes of your time it takes to watch; for once Romney is speaking with passion and conviction, seemingly off the cuff. Want to know how good it was? Even Michelle Malkin was near-ecstatic:

I believed in what he was selling: A vision for restoring American greatness and defending success.

Obama’s inability to hide his ideological contempt for entrepreneurs & individual success has helped Romney self-actualize.

If he gives this speech with the same zeal and optimism from now until November — offering a clear, unapologetic contrast to Barack Obama’s bitter politics of resentment, class warfare, and entitlement, Mitt Romney will win.

And there’s the key: this can’t just be a one-time or one-week strategy. Every speech he makes from now on, whether from a small-town bandstand before a dozen people or the podium of the Republican convention in front of the nation, has to strike these same themes. He can’t be afraid to call Obama out for what he is, nor to show proudly who he himself is. It’s what America wants to hear and wants to see in him — and not the defeatist, dependent, decline-is-our-choice crap Obama is pushing.

Do that, and I guarantee a Republican landslide in November.

Footnote:
(1) The whole tax return kerfuffle is just a lame distraction. Even if Romney turned over every single tax return he ever filed, Obama and the Democrats would demand more: Bain corporate minutes, Romney emails, his credit card records — anything they can use to fish for the least little thing they can spin as possibly suspicious, and just to plant the idea in the public’s mind that Romney is hiding something by simply making the demands. Instead, Romney should say he’ll release the returns — when Obama turns over his college transcripts, state senate papers, and the Fast and Furious documents. And then see how fast the Democrats drop this line of attack.

RELATED: The Tatler previews Romney’s next attack: Obama “has given up on job creation.” From Gateway Pundit, you know those infamous Bain layoffs? It seems the main in charge of Bain at the time was not Mitt Romney, but one of Obama’s most important donors. Ooops.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Obama favors the donor class over the middle class

July 16, 2012

A new ad from the Romney campaign:

With unemployment over 8% for the longest stretch since the Great Depression (and, if you count the barely employed, it’s been over 14% since Obama took office), who is the president watching out for? Who is he taking care of?

Those who take care of him.

PS: Romney 2012. Because he made his money the old-fashioned way — he earned it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


A third-party vote is a vote to reelect Obama

July 13, 2012

You’re doing what??

Look, I get the frustration: you don’t like Obama, you distrust Romney, there’s no “real conservative” in the race. No one who represents you. I get it; I’ve felt it myself at times, too. (1)

But splitting the Right is the surest way to reelect the president:

A former Virginia Congressman may be placing the critical state of Virginia squarely in President Obama’s win column. Virgil Goode, who represented Virginia’s 5th district as a Republican from 1997 to 2009. Now Goode is the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party and might be on the November ballot in his home state. The Washington Times reports that some polls indicate Obama already leads Romney in Virginia.

(…)

Some on the right clearly remain dissatisfied with the GOP nominee for president and obviously Goode counts himself among them. Goode spoke with WMAL radio this morning and faced tough questioning from hosts Brian Williams and Bryan Nehman, neither of whom took Goode’s candidacy seriously as anything but a boon for President Obama.

Williams and Nehman are spot on. While Mr. Goode has every right to run for president, splitting the vote on the Right raises serious risks of handing the vote to Obama.  In a normal election between candidates well-within the mainstream of American politics, fine, vote your conscience. If the Constitution Party matches your principles, go for it. If you want to write yourself in as a protest vote, be my guest; I’ve done it a few times, myself.

But not this election.

Barack Obama is the worst president of the last 100 years, maybe since James Buchanan. He and his progressive/Socialist/corporatist/New Left/whatever allies who run the Democratic Party are running this country hard into the ground, doing it serious long-term fiscal harm, dividing people along class and ethnic lines, and conducting a foreign policy so incompetent that they are succeeding in making the world a far more dangerous place.

You may not like Romney. I understand. But do you really think there’d be no difference with four more years of Obama, with 2-3 more Supreme Court picks coming? With as lawless an administration as we’ve seen in our lifetimes?  With the military being gutted? With the treasury borrowing like a gambling addict? With energy prices forced to skyrocket because of federal policy? Like I’ve said before, hold your nose if you have to, but vote for Romney and concentrate on giving him as conservative a Congress as possible, so that he’s forced to swing Right if he wants to be successful.

But don’t give in to the temptation to vote for a third party; that way lies ruin.

via Anthropocon

Footnote:
(1) I wanted Palin or Perry. I got Romney. I’ve been there.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Who’s the big “outsourcer” in this race? — UPDATED Et tu, Nancy?

July 11, 2012

The latest Obama campaign strategy in their relentless efforts to get people to talk about anything but Obama’s miserable record on the  economy is to accuse Mitt Romney of “outsourcing” jobs (1) overseas when he ran Bain Capital. Forget the falsity of the charge, Team Obama and their allies in the media are going to play this class warfare tune over and over, hoping that it sticks with enough voters to make a difference.

The RNC is ready with an answer — “Look who’s talking.”

I’d say there’s a tremendous difference between a company making a rational economic decision (2) about where best to locate offices and hire workers, on the one hand, and a government taking billions of taxpayer dollars on the promise to create American jobs and then shipping that money overseas to create anything but American jobs, on the other. Wouldn’t you?

Obama and his people would do well to remember the old saying about people living in glass houses. If they don’t, we’ll be happy to throw the stones.

RELATED: More at Hot Air.

Footnote:
(1) Of course, what they really mean is “offshoring,” but it’s a bit much to expect Democrats to understand basic economics.
(2) In other words, meeting their fiduciary responsibility to their investors. How evil of them.

UPDATE: I wonder if Team Obama will criticize that noted cruel exploiter of outsourced offshored labor… Nancy Pelosi?

According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.” A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.

“Designed in California, Made in Manila” sounds like an excellent title for a smear ad to be run the by the Barack Obama campaign. Instead, it appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s investment strategy.

Pelosi is also a small investor in the embattled “Moduslink Global,” one of the “outsourcing pioneers” that Mitt Romney has been criticized for associating with while at Bain Capital.

Egg, meet face.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Team Obama on Romney: “Let’s kill this guy!”

July 5, 2012

New Tone alert!

Remember when it was a mortal sin for Sarah Palin’s PAC to use crosshairs on a poster depicting targeted races in 2010?

That was then, this is now:

On a mission to shatter the image of her husband as rigid and unrelatable, Ann Romney told CBS News she worries that President Obama’s entire campaign strategy is “kill Romney.”

“I feel like all he’s doing is saying, ‘Let’s kill this guy,” she said, seated next to her husband, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in an exclusive interview with CBS News chief political correspondent Jan Crawford. “And I feel like that’s not really a very good campaign policy.

“I feel like Mitt’s got the answers to turn this country around,” she continued. “He’s the one that’s got to bring back hope for this country, which is what they ran on last time. But the truth is, this is the one that has the hope for the – for America.”

In August, some Democratic strategists let leak to the press that Obama’s top aides were looking at a massive character takedown of Romney in light of a deterring economy; “kill Romney” was a phrase used by one. “That was their memo that came out from their campaign,” Ann Romney said. “And it’s like, ‘not when I’m next to him you better not.”

And there you have the Left’s strategy for this election: they can’t talk about the economy, and health care reform is too risky to campaign on (regardless of what some say), so all the Democrats, the media, and the activist Left (but I repeat myself) are left with lies about the opposition’s record and character assassination — “killing the guy.”

This isn’t something new, either. When Palin was introduced to America and wowed the nation, the Democrat/media complex set out to destroy her. In 2008 the media colluded to smear those who wanted to dig into Obama’s background. Slanderous rumors were spread about John McCain cheating on his wife, which turned out to have no basis in fact. In 2004, false documents and flat-out lies were spread about George W. Bush’s military service. And in election after election, Republican presidential candidates (and presidents) are derided as “stupid,” going at least as far back as Eisenhower.

There’s another reason Democrats constantly resort to the tactics of personal smear: not only does it provide a distraction from their failures, but, as Dennis Praeger writes, hate works:

Since Stalin labeled Leon Trotsky — the man who was the father of Russian Bolshevism! — a “fascist,” the Left has labeled its ideological opponents evil. And when you control nearly all of the news media and schools, that labeling works.

The liberal media even succeeded in blaming the right wing for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy even though his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a pro-Soviet, pro-Castro communist. Similarly, just one day after a deranged man, Jared Loughner, attempted to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six people in the process, The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that it was right-wing hate that had provoked Loughner: “It’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence. Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. . . .”

Krugman made it all up. But what matters to most of those who speak for the left is not truth. It is destroying the good name of its opponents. That is the modus operandi of the left.

It works.

And because it works, you can bet the Obama campaign will use it more and more, especially if the economy stays in the doldrums or gets worse. Ann Romney may find herself “playing bodyguard” far more than even she expects.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Ye shall judge a man by his enemies: If Russia does not like Mitt Romney…

July 3, 2012

…Then I call that a big point in Romney’s favor, especially when the Russians deign to tell us Obama is acceptable:

Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of the State Duma, said in a recent interview that Russian leaders have noted Romney’s comments with concern, and are watching with interest as neoconservative and “realist” advisers maneuver for influence within the campaign.

“We don’t think that for us Romney will be an easy partner,” said Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin. “We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration.”

He also noted Romney’s statements that the United States should assert its dominance in the 21st century.

“If he is serious about this, I’m afraid he may choose the neocon-type people…In the first year of his presidency, we may have a full-scale crisis,” he said.

(…)

Pushkov said that the “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations that Obama has portrayed as a signature foreign policy accomplishment “is stuck, basically. It needs another reset.”

Nevertheless, though the U.S. and Russia are at odds on issues such as Syria and missile defense, Obama would be “acceptable” as a partner for Russia in a second term, Pushkov said.

I guess the information was transmitted to Vladimir, as promised.

Romney’s communications shop is sharp. Expect to see this in a commercial some time between now and November. While the economy is the dominant issue, foreign affairs are still important, and Russia is ruthlessly pursuing its perceived self-interest in a desperate struggle to remain a relevant power. (Which will get harder and harder — they’re dying demographically.) I’d much rather have someone in office who believes a dominant America is a good thing for the world, rather than someone who perceives American power as the problem and chooses decline and appeasement.

Oh, and thanks for the concern, Alexey! We’ll be sure to take your advice into account on Election Day!

LINK: More at Hot Air

PS: Romney 2012

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#ObamaCare : A little evidence liberals may not savor this win for too long

June 29, 2012

A whole lot of the wrong people (in their view) just got very motivated yesterday:

Let’s remember, until almost the end in 2010, the left “misunderestimated” the public’s anger at having ObamaCare shoved down their throats and thought they would retain the House. What they got instead was the “Great Shellacking.” This kind of spontaneous money-bomb should have them giving each other nervous looks.

And yet… They’re doing it again. (1) They’re making us angry. They won’t like it when we’re angry.

Remember in November. Let’s give them “The Great Shellacking II.”

Footnote:
(1) Really. This is what professional Democrats and progressives think of you. Keep that in mind. And tell your friends. And while you’re at it, thank Mr. Gaspard for being so honest.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) “Fine?”

June 10, 2012

At a press conference last Friday, President Obama asserted that the “private sector is doing fine,” something that approached Biden-like levels of detachment from reality.

It didn’t take long for the Romney campaign to say, in effect, “Oh, yeah? On what planet?”

Expect to see this on TVs everywhere in the coming months.

This moment is especially revealing:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.”

(transcript via Hot Air)

Obama’s concern isn’t with the private sector, regardless of the feeble state of the so-called “recovery” or the danger of another recession. His priorities are those of the statist — the primacy of government in society. His solutions to “problems” in the public sector are those of the Socialist (1): more government, more borrowing and spending, in spite of the evident failure of the first stimulus (2).

It’s the view of someone so trapped by his ideological paradigms that he literally cannot see what’s all around him, like a horse with blinders on. Hence, “the private sector is doing fine.”

Next November, we take the blinders off for him.

PS: Romney 2012

Footnotes:
(1) But more on that, later.
(2) For a good explanation of why fiscal stimulus fails, see Bruce Reidl.

UPDATE: Louisiana’s Governor Jindal also noted Obama’s “government first” orientation:

“I suspect that many in the Obama administration really don’t believe in private enterprise. At best they see business as something to be endured so that that it can provide tax money for government programs,” said Jindal.

Responding to Obama’s statement that the private sector was doing fine, he added: “Mr. President, I’ve got a message for you: The private sector is not doing well when 23 million Americans are unemployed and underemployed in this great country. This president, the private sector is so foreign to him he might need a passport to actually go visit and he might need a translator to help him talk to folks in the private sector.”

Yep. (via ST‘s Hot Headlines)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#war Romney visits Solyndra, hits Obama for cronyism and corruption

June 1, 2012

I’ll say this, unlike John McCain, Mitt Romney is willing to fight:

Keep it up, Governor. Keep punching. The One has a glass jaw.

RELATED: Past posts on Solyndra. Allahpundit on Romney’s surprise visit to Solyndra and how the Romney campaign is turning the tables on Team Obama. Power Line says “These aren’t your father’s Republicans.”

UPDATE: I wrote this post last night to make sure there was something for the morning. In the meantime, the Romney communications shop was busy turning it into this ad — “Symbol of Failure:”

Less than 24-hour turnaround. Well, done. My only change would have been to insert the blunt word “corruption” along with the more jargony “crony capitalism.” But that’s a quibble.

And it’s timed perfectly to go with today’s lousy jobs report.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Mitt Romney Memorial Day speech in San Diego

May 29, 2012

Key takeaway from this address in San Diego: He wants an American military “with no comparable power anywhere in the world.”

Or, as I like to say, a military so strong that it doesn’t just tell a potential foe “think again,” it says “don’t even think about it.”

Here’s the speech:

via American Power

PS: Romney 2012, because we can’t afford four more years of chucklehead government.

PPS: And if you want a barn-burner of a speech, check out retired Gunnery Sergeant and current congressional candidate Nick Popaditch’s address from the same event.


Romney campaign quick to take advantage of Democratic gaffes

May 22, 2012

Gaffes of the Kinsleyan kind, wherein a politician accidentally speaks the truth. Over the last weekend, prominent Democratic figures have criticized the Obama campaigns mendacious attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. Corey Booker, Harold Ford, jr., and former “Car Czar” Steve Rattner all came out with “knock it off” messages. (1)

In fairness, Booker at least was also attacking Republicans for raising the Reverend Wright issue again, but what’s important here is his (and others’) criticisms that feed the idea that Obama is way too far to the left for most Americans.

Which he is.

This was hugely embarrassing for Obama, since, especially in the case of Mayor Booker, a charismatic and popular moderate Democrat, the deviations from the party line badly undercut one of Obama’s key class-warfare campaign messages.

Team Romney was again Johnny-on-the-spot:

I think you’ll be seeing this a lot in the coming months.

via the PJ Tatler

Footnote:
(1) And Booker has now paid the price for his “wrong thought,” being forced to abase himself on Twitter and on video to show his loyalty to The One. Where’s Andrei Vyshinsky when you need him?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bain vs. Bane

May 20, 2012

The Obama campaign, including their allies in the media, have tried their best to make Mitt Romney’s time at turnaround investment company Bain Capital a negative for him, portraying him as a heartless, greedy capitalist. (1)

The IBD’s Michael Ramirez parries those attacks with one simple cartoon that compare Romney’s record as a CEO to Obama’s as president:

(Click the image for a larger version)

As they say, ’nuff said.

And be sure to check out Michael’s archive at IBD; he’s the best conservative political cartoonist in the business these days and one of the best, ever.

Footnote:
(1) Sadly, some Republicans helped give them ammunition. And let’s not speak of Obama’s corporate donors and the rewards they get; that would be racist.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Videos) 23 million out of work

May 18, 2012

The Romney campaign has a new series of videos focusing on the 23,000,000 Americans out of work. I think they’re both pretty good:

While the video is way too long for TV, it can easily be edited into 30-second spots. Bonus points to anyone who noticed the tombstone in the graveyard shot with the name “CARTER” on it. Well played, Romney-ites. Well-played.

Next…

This one reminds the viewers of the non-union workers at auto-parts maker Delphi who were screwed out of much of their pensions by Barack Obama in the GM and Chrysler bailouts, so he could pay off his UAW benefactors. This one still galls me. Expect it to get a lot of play in Ohio.

Overall, these videos represent good strategy: while people on the outside of the campaign, from super-PACs to bloggers, engage in direct fights against the Obama campaign’s latest attempts at distraction via class and cultural warfare, Team Romney stays focused like a laser on the economy, the one thing Obama does not want to talk about.

And with 23 million Americans out of work (and so many giving up on finding any), you can bet Romney will have plenty more stories to tell between now and election day.

PS: Romney 2012.

PPS: Did you know Obama made “old Mexican ladies” cry in college? (Just a little push-back on the “Romney was a bully” attempted distraction.)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Joining Blogs4Mitt

May 5, 2012

(Graphic courtesy of…)

If you look over to the sidebar on the right, you’ll see a new graphic, announcing this Public Secrets’ membership in “Blogs4Mitt,” a site linking independent bloggers who support Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president. The founder is “Rusty Shackleford” of My Pet Jawa fame, and he explains his reasons for doing this:

The primary season is all but over and Mitt will be our nominee. In 2004 bloggers rallied around George W. Bush and I was part of that movement. Together, we helped President Bush beat the challenge by John Kerry.

It’s time for us to do the same for Romney. Can we really afford four more years of Obama’s failed economic policies?

The legacy he is leaving our children is one of perpetual debt to China and dimmer job prospects to be able to pay off that debt.

In 3 years the Obama Administration has managed to borrow more money than the previous administration did in 8. And what does the country have to show for it? Higher gas prices, unemployment at record highs, and an economy so sluggish that at this growth rate it would take another four years just to get us to pre-recession employment levels

ENOUGH!!

(…)

If we want to defeat Barrack Obama we need to stop fighting each other and unite in our fight against him now. That means turning the blogosphere’s attention on Obama, and the man who will replace him — Mitt Romney!

Seconded.

And let me add to Rusty’s bill of indictment: Obama’s contempt for the Constitution; his sneering at the rule of law; his near-total incompetence and weakness in foreign affairs; his cronyism that time and again has rewarded political backers at the expense of others; and a campaign of slice-and-dice that seeks his reelection by desperately turning us against each other. And so much more.

You want examples, the archives are in the sidebar.

The time to say “Yeah, but…” about Mitt Romney is over. He wasn’t my first choice, nor my second. But he is all-but the nominee now, and he is so much better than Obama that any suggestion that he would be “more of the same” is nonsensical.

I support Mitt Romney and I do so enthusiastically; I hope you will, too.

Because we can’t afford four more years of the worst president since James Buchanan.

PS: Romney 2012.


(Video) Bil Whittle: Man bites dog

May 3, 2012

Busy day today, but I wanted to share the latest Firewall with you. In it, Bill looks at the silliness regarding Romney “dog on the car roof” story and “Obama ate a dog,” and explains why it matters. First, because it illustrates in bright, neon colors yet another example of mainstream media hypocrisy: the New York Times disapprovingly mentions the Romney story 56 times, but dismisses Obama’s self-confessed chow-down on a Chow as a distraction. Typical.

But his larger point is the more important one: Obama eating dog meat, in addition to all the other elements of his early life, shows how he just isn’t one of us. Not in the silly sense of being a “sekrit Mooslim” or the equally nonsensical birther fantasies, but that the sum total of his life experience leaves him unable to understand or empathize with his “fellow” Americans. While Bill focuses on Obama’s early life, I’d toss in his collegiate years and his life in Chicago within the echo chamber of Socialist community organizing and leftist academia. Bill Clinton feeling our pain, he isn’t.

Enjoy:

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) In which David Axelrod endorses Mitt Romney

April 15, 2012

Oh, my.

The Washington Post explains:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s camp seized on a Sunday morning interview in which Obama senior adviser David Axelrod appeared to suggest that the country’s economic recovery is not on the right path.

“The choice in this election is between economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we are on, where a fewer and fewer number of people do very well, and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace,” Axelrod told host Chris Wallace during a contentious interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

First Hilary Rosen attacks Ann Romney, and now Obama’s chief political strategist accidentally endorses the other guy. Who needs Biden for gaffes when you’ve got these clowns?

The video, by the way, is courtesy of the Romney campaign’s communications shop; you can bet this will be in a commercial coming your way. Since it became all but official that Romney’s the nominee, his campaign has shown a refreshing willingness to hit back hard and fast and to take the battle to the foe, something sorely lacking in the McCain campaign in 2008.

Keep it up, guys.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Has Romney read Bastiat?

April 15, 2012

Frederic Bastiat

Republican nominee-in-waiting Mitt Romney spoke recently at a meeting of the National Rifle Association in St. Louis, where he gave a powerful speech attacking the Obama administration’s insults to our economic liberty. IBD’s Andrew Malcolm posted excerpts from the speech (and the whole thing), and I recommend reading it.

One part in particular jumped out at me, however, wherein Romney explains the hidden costs of Obama’s tax-and-regulate binge:

“The real cost isn’t just the taxes paid and money spent complying with the rules. It’s the businesses that are never started, the ideas that are never pursued, the dreams that are never realized.”

That could come straight from the thinking of Frederic Bastiat, a 19th century French (1) classical liberal and economist. In his essay “That which is seen, and that which is not seen,” Bastiat attacked the idea that government spending could create wealth, arguing instead that such spending, while it would pump money into the economy, came at the expense of the citizen’s ability to spend that same money on those things that would improve his life. To illustrate his point, he used the parable of the broken window:

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

In other words, no wealth was created. The glazier may be a bit richer, but the shopkeeper is poorer. (He may have his window, but he’s out six francs.) Worse, his economic liberty to make his life better was infringed, since the breaking of the window forced him to spend money only to put things back the way they were.

The quote from Romney’s NRA speech indicates he understands (2) what Bastiat was talking about: that government spending only moves wealth from one pocket to another (via taxation); that regulations are a form of taxation (through compliance costs); and that both entail hidden opportunity costs (those things we would like to do but now cannot) by restricting economic liberty.

A president who takes Bastiat to heart is far preferable to one who embraces Alinsky.

Footnotes:
(1) A Frenchman advocating limited government? How times have changed.
(2) Yeah, I know: “Romneycare.” Let’s hope he learned from that.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)